3 ms·
> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step. What's the foundation of that argument?
by ascar 4y ago
> It's not super efficient, but I am pretty sure you're not going to improve that by introducing an intermediate step.
What's the foundation of that argument? An intermediate step that's achieved more efficiently and allows for a more efficient follow-up certainly can improve the efficiency of the overall process compared to one with less steps?
- ABCLAW 4y agoMost chemical synthesis steps produce side products. More steps means more %yield loss. If it's possible you go from A->B at 80% efficiency. If we compare this with A->C then C->B need to be nearly twice as efficient to provide a better yield. Remember these steps include losses due to non chemical reasons. You might have issues with your reactors or transferring the solution to a new reaction chamber might incur losses, etc. In most complex organic synth situations, the full synthesis will be 8-20 steps or so, so we're talking about yields of %efficiency^x. Lowering X helps a ton. In short, the alternate route needs to be really good to justify additional steps.